There are a lot of new filings in SCO v. IBM. Mostly it's asking for
permission to talk a lot, and the rest are notices of conventional filing
of sealed materials. Just as one example:

IBM’s Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s Contract Claims (SCO’s First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action), which consists of approximately 81 pages of legal argument, exclusive of face sheet, preliminary statement, statement of facts, declarations and exhibits.

IBM points out, however, that in SCO's opposition to IBM's various motions for summary judgment, "SCO has submitted briefs in excess of 830 total pages, including memoranda and appendices." So both sides have a lot to say, which is why there are limits to begin with, I suppose.

From the new filings on Pacer we can read, we learn that the parties have stipulated to a change in some deadlines:

Both parties’ responses to all outstanding requests for admission shall be due on March 30, 2007; Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures shall be due on April 12, 2007; Deadline for Exchanging Jury Instructions shall be April 27, 2007; Motions in Limine shall be due on May 4, 2007; Final Pretrial Order shall be due 45 days before trial; Special Attorney Conference and Settlement Conference shall be due 30 days before trial.

And we get to read SCO’S Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of its Motion for Summary Judgment on IBM's 6th, 7th and 8th Counterclaim, in which we get to enjoy SCO claiming that as a matter of law it has complied with the GPL and never repudiated it. I'll put that up separately, as text.

A motion in limine is "a motion made at the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may not be introduced in trial." It's stuff the jury never hears, unless a lawyer goofs, an example of which you can find in the January 5th transcript in the Comes v. Microsoft trial, where a Microsoft lawyer mentioned motions in limine before the jury and was told by the judge not to do so. At trial, there can be issues of what evidence can or can't be used, even when there has been a ruling on a motion in limine, and if you wish to see an example of that, read this transcript of January 11th in the Comes case, where there is a long discussion of what Ronald Alepin can and can't be asked.

920 -
Filed:
01/09/2007
Entered:
01/10/2007
Order on Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER granting [905] Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Sashi Bach Boruchow for SCO Group.
Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice may download a copy of the District of Utahs local rules from the courts web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov
. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 1/8/07. (blk)

921 -
Filed:
01/09/2007
Entered:
01/10/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re [899] Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Clerks Note: Exhibits are oversized and not attached to this entry. They will be retained in the Clerks Office 5th floor sealed room for viewing by authorized persons only.) (blk)

924 -
Filed & Entered:
01/12/2007
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of (1) IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims (SCO's First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action); (2) IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim (SCO's Fifth Cause of Action); (3) IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim (SCO's Sixth Cause of Action); (4) IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims (SCO's Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action); (5) IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Its Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement (IBM's Tenth Counterclaim); (6) IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on Its Claim for Copyright Infringement Claim (IBM's Eighth Counterclaim); (7) Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy; (8) Supplemental Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation (Shaughnessy, Todd)

925 -
Filed & Entered:
01/12/2007
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of SCO'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SCO'S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION, FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group (Hatch, Brent)